BOMBSHELL Report Explodes In Hillary’s Face As Her Flimsy Email Excuse Totally Falls Apart

Image Credit: Twitter

After claiming that she managed her email account from a personal. private server for the “convenience” of being able to use a single device for all her digital communications, Hillary Clinton’s excuse for her highly unusual practice has fallen apart.

The Associated Press, which has filed suit demanding the full release of all of the former secretary of state’s work-releated emails, has just exposed Mrs. Clinton’s one-device rationale as a lie.

“Hillary Rodham Clinton emailed her staff on an iPad as well as a BlackBerry while secretary of state, despite her explanation she exclusively used a personal email address on a homebrew server so that she could carry a single device, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.”

The AP also reports that, contrary to what the likely presidential contender has maintained, Mrs. Clinton mingled personal and professional communications in her emails with top aide Huma Abedin, whose own email practices while at the State Department are under scrutiny.

“In reply to a message sent in September 2011 by adviser Huma Abedin to Clinton’s personal email account, which contained an AP story about a drone strike in Pakistan, Clinton mistakenly replied with questions that appear to be about decorations.”

Rep. Trey Gowdy, the GOP chairman of the House select committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks that left four Americans dead, said he was told that Clinton had wiped her email server “clean,” possibly some months ago.

As Western Journalism reported yesterday, the deletion of all emails from her personal server — a mass destruction apparently carried out at Ms. Clinton’s direction and in possible defiance of congressional subpoenas — could mean that Hillary has opened herself to obstruction of justice charges.

Fox News’ Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano Napolitano said that Mrs. Clinton has now admitted to a number of acts which might be considered crimes, but that the former Obama administration official could get away with what she’s done if no one in authority has the “courage” to pursue her.

The bombshell AP report notes that “Mrs. Clinton’s attorney said she had turned over to the State Department all work-related emails sent or received during her tenure and it would make no sense to turn over her server, since ‘no emails … reside on the server or on any backup systems associated with the server.’”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Holding Hillary Accountable For ‘Criminal’ Acts Will Depend On This One Thing, Says Judge Nap

Image Credit: Fox News

“She was so good at this, she could have taught Richard Nixon some lessons.” That’s how Judge Andrew Napolitano just described Hillary Clinton’s attempt to keep tight control over all of her emails during her tenure as secretary of state — even the emails concerning her official government business.

The Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst appeared on “America’s Newsroom” Monday morning to respond to the news that the private email server on which Mrs. Clinton kept all of her digital communications had been wiped clean. That, argues the judge, could be “obstruction of justice,” given that congressional subpoenas for those emails had been issued prior to their destruction.

Napolitano told host Bill Hemmer that Mrs. Clinton has now admitted to a number of acts which might be considered crimes, but that the former Obama administration official could get away with what she’s done if no one in authority has the “courage” to pursue her.

“None of her crimes will get to first base in terms of prosecution without a prosecutor to pursue them.” The judge added that it will take one thing to bring Hillary’s controversial actions in front of a grand jury — “courage.”

“She’s in trouble legally if there’s a prosecutor with the courage…to prosecute her.”

And even if Mrs. Clinton is not prosecuted, will she suffer political damage because of the emailgate scandal? You can hear Judge Nap’s answer to that key question, as well as his take on Hillary Clinton’s possible criminal misconduct, by clicking on the video above.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Calls For Obama’s Impeachment Could Well Grow Louder With Army’s Decision To Charge Bergdahl

Images Credit: Twitter

When President Obama agreed in mid-2014 to exchange five top Taliban leaders in U.S. custody for an American soldier held by a terror group in Afghanistan, prominent critics of the deal charged that the commander-in-chief had committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” and should be impeached.

At the heart of those early calls for impeachment were claims that Obama had broken federal law against supporting terrorists. A June 2014 post on WND quoted Fox News’ Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano:

“’We have a federal statute which makes it a felony to provide material assistance to any terrorist organization. It could be money, maps, professional services, any asset whatsoever, include human assets,’ [Napolitano] said.”

Colonel Allen West, a former member of Congress, called on Capitol Hill lawmakers “to draft articles of impeachment as no one is above the law in America.”

Joining in the stinging criticism of Obama’s questionable “Taliban Five” trade deal was the former assistant U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted Islamic radicals behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

Andrew McCarthy argued that “transferring the five terrorists to Qatar in exchange for the release of Bergdahl ‘violates the law against material support to terrorism.’”

Commentator Matt Barber (whose columns frequently appear on Western Journalism) added his voice to the chorus calling for impeachment. Via CNS News:

Whether Obama is intentionally trying to overthrow his own government is open for debate. But that he is, ‘adhering to [America’s] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,’ is without question.

Those calls for Obama’s impeachment came after controversial details of the deal were made public last summer, but long before the Army’s investigation of the Bergdahl case was complete…and longer still before today’s announcement that the military is charging Bowe Bergdahl with desertion.

When President Obama formally and proudly announced Bergdahl’s release after five years in captivity, there was a high-profile Rose Garden celebration of sorts featuring Bergdahl’s parents. Fox News reminds us:

“Bob Bergdahl, who had studied Islam during his son’s captivity appeared with a full beard and read a Muslim prayer, while Bergdahl’s mother Jani embraced the president.”

Then the administration set about trumpeting its triumphant accomplishment in the media.

Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice — known for her adamant assertion that the Benghazi attack was caused by an Internet video — went so far as to praise Bergdahl on national television, hailing the newly freed soldier as having “served the United States with honor and distinction.”

Rice’s declaration that the release of this “honorable” soldier marked a “joyous day” seems all the more removed from reality now that the Army has determined to prosecute Bergdahl for willfully leaving his post in Afghanistan.

Appearing on “The O’Reilly Factor” close to two months ago, retired Army officer, Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, claimed the Pentagon had determined to charge Bergdahl; but the White House was desperately trying to keep that fact from going public because it would embarrass Obama.

Some of Bergdahl’s platoon-mates in recent months have been outspoken in their claims that Bowe Bergdahl voluntarily walked away from his unit and put his fellow soldiers lives at risk when they conducted dangerous missions to try to locate him.

At a Wednesday afternoon briefing about the Bergdahl case, an Army spokesman said there are two charges being lodged: “desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty” and “misbevaior before the enemy” that endangered his fellow soldiers.

The next step in the case is for the Army to hold a preliminary hearing at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. If taken to a court martial and found guilty, Bowe Bergdahl could face life in prison.

The consequences for Barack Obama, beyond potential embarrassment and renewed political grief, are yet to be determined.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

WATCH How Judge Napolitano Just Nuked Obama’s Pro-Amnesty Argument As ‘Weird, Bizarre’

Judge Napolitano

One week after a federal judge in Texas blocked implementation of President Obama’s executive amnesty orders, the administration officially asked that same judge to admit his injunction was wrong and to issue a stay on his own decision.

Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that allowing Obama’s unilateral action to defer deportations for millions of illegal immigrants to proceed would cause “irreparable harm” to the states.

Obama’s lawyers on Monday shot back that blocking the president’s amnesty orders would cause “irreparable harm” to the federal government’s effort to do its duty. Part of that supposed duty, as Judge Andrew Napolitano notes about the administration’s position, is to help illegal immigrants to get Social Security numbers and work visas, as Obama has repeatedly promised he would.

“The government wants to break the law so it can help other law breakers stay here,” [Napolitano] stated. “I have never heard the government make an argument like that.”

You can watch the “Fox and Friends” segment with the network’s Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, by clicking on the video above.

h/t: Fox News

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

WATCH: Judge Nap Just Revealed What ObamaCare’s Gruber Might Tell Congress That Could Destroy The Law

Gruber

When ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber shows up on Capitol Hill today to testify before a congressional committee, he will be greeted by members of a Tea Party group wearing t-shirts that read, “I’m with stupid.”

So reports the Washington Times in an article about the highly anticipated testimony of the MIT professor who finds himself at the center of a political storm over his “stupidity of the American voter” comments on the passage of ObamaCare.

In a discussion with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why Gruber’s scheduled appearance before Rep. Darrell Issa’s Oversight Committee could present more than a further political problem for President Obama and his allies who support ObamaCare.

The Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News says Gruber’s testimony will result in a serious legal problem if it’s revealed that Justice Department officials were aware of the deception and misled the Supreme Court — leading to the high court’s controversial 2012 ruling upholding ObamaCare.

“If the court relied on a trick that was put in the document in order to trick the court, they will want to reexamine their decision immediately.”

You can watch Judge Nap’s argument regarding Jonathan Gruber’s testimony and the future of ObamaCare by clicking on the video above.

 

Image Credit: Fox News

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom